The sun. [volume] (Morris, Stevens County, Minn.) 1882-1895, 1887-11-24
DISTRICT COURT.

The session busy one. and much work
Done.
Tho term Of district court held
here last week was a very busy one.
Judge Sleeper was here for the spe-
cial purpose of clearing the calender
of all the cases in which Judge
Brown was interested as attorney,
and he succeeded in accomplishing
this work. All of these cases were
finally disposed Of, and a namber of
new cases were tried. Judge Sleeper
is considered as an excellent Judge
by the members of the bar His abil-
ity to strike to the root of every
question brought before him is re.
marked by all who attended court,
and the manner in which. upon a re-
view CT any case, he grasps all of the
circumstances in it show him to be of
a natural judicial turn of mind. At
ter dispcsing of the Brown & Chew
cases Judge Sleeper returned to his
home at Brainard. Judge Brown
concluded the term and the people of
this place had the first opportunity Of
attending court presided over by our
Judge. of whose judicial capacity we
have heard so much said that is de-
servedly catering.
The following is the work done
during the term and the disposition
made of the cases on the calendar:
Mccormick Harvesting Machine company
ct al. VS.. F. B. Kenner and R. C. Moore
Continued.
The Pitts Agric lltural Works VS.. John
| Maginnis and Chas. p. Maginnis-S Settled.
The Pitts Agricultural Works vs. John
Magnnis, Chas. P. Maginnis and VIM. Nc
Cullough-Set,led.
VIM. L, Colyer VS.. Rector ct al of ALI
| Saints church of the village of Morlis-Tried
| by jury. Judgment for $3.50 10 and interest
| asked Judgment rendered fer SIT .63.
| Johnson & Hurd vs.. Hancock Bros Dis
missed on motion of plaintiffs.
II. B. Osgood & Co. vs.. D. r. Sutherland
ct al-T;ird by jury; judgment rendered
| for S.
John A. Johnson vs.. A. H. Hedderly-Ne
|
Anton Erickson VS.. Henry K. He!geson-
Tried by jury; jury disagreed, and continued
state OF Minnesota vs.. P. A. Mccarthy
Dismissed by stipulation, the state audito,
having ordered taxes in suit abated.
| The same disposition was made of all the
other tax cases against P. A. Mccarthy.
John Currivan VS.. Michael Finnegan-
Judgment for plaintiff rendered in lowe
court affirmed on motion of plaintiff.
| VIM. w. Noting vs. Charles 4 Groom
qnist- Tried by jury; judgment for plaintiff
plf.
P. H. Desmond vs.. Maginnis & Callahan
Plaintiffs motion to dismiss appeal dis
allowed. Judgment of lower court in favo
of plaintiff was afterward affirmed on plain
tiff's motion.
Eugene Atwood VS.. John l.. Gould-Triet
by Jury and verdict for defendant rendered
Chas. J Croonquist VS.. Christian Flatne
By stipulation of parties to be submi,ie
to the court on briefs wit hin 80 days
Geo. II. Deipenbroch vs.. Chas r. Magin
nis-Tried by court and dismissed.
Fred A. Bailey VS.. Thomas Murphy
Tried by jury: verdict for plaintiff for fu
amount asked-375 aud interest.
Curtiss Egbert vs.. H. +. Peters and Chas
j. Croonquist-Stricken from the calends
on motion of defendants.
Frank Dohnistreich vs.. Herman Zahl-
Dismissed.
Larson & Nilsson vs. .Thomasy Gaughan.
, BY stipulation OF parties, plaintiffs took judg
ment for the amount asked i'll their CON
plant.
Several indictments were returned. but
OF these cases were continued unit il ne
term OF court